Designer as Critic

I’ve been thinking a lot about the the author is dead argument and the anti-intentionalist critical bent since it came up in the Lamarque reading.

I take it for granted that the critical theory we read in this class — even when it isn’t geared toward interaction design per se — has much to contribute to our fluctuating sense of identity as designers because, as designers, we are also necessarily design critics. We criticize our own work and we criticize others’ work

Last semester in Foundations we discussed the importance of taking a normative approach to design, and we can’t do this unless we’re critics (both by being critical of the approaches we don’t take and by being self-reflective critics throughout the design process).

So, in order to take a normative approach to design we must be critics. We must also, insofar as it is possible to do so, know ourselves. We must know who we are and what we believe relative to the thing we’re criticizing.

As designer/critics aren’t we obligated to reject the anti-intentionalist critical bent on the grounds that intent/intention is so essential to the design process? If we adhere to the the author is dead line of thinking, then what implications does this adherence have for our sense of identity as designers?

Meta

4 comments

Nice post. I agree with most of what you are saying here. I think that if we are examining our own or a colleagues work then it is important to take into consideration the designer and their intentions. This is probably also true if you are writing formal criticism (a little less sure about that though). For my personal growth and interest as a designer, I feel that the author/designer and their intentions are extremely relevant.

But, I believe it’s a worthwhile exercise to examine a design from the anti-intentionalist or author is dead perspective. Being a good designer means being able to empathize with the user. If we put ourselves in the users shoes I think that quite often a user couldn’t care less about who the designer is or what their intentions were — the design just needs to help them achieve their goals and fulfill their motivations.

Gary, as I mentioned earlier today, great point. I hadn’t considered that perspective and I do think it is a valuable one to strive for.

However, I hit a wall when I imagine surrendering fully to the user’s point of view. Given the theoretical and practical training we receive in the HCI/d program, I see us as no longer users, but user-designers….or maybe designer-users…unable to look and criticize from a purely ‘user’ perspective.

Nonetheless, it is valuable to try and look through a user’s eyes. I agree with you there.

So, I tried to think back to the days before I started the program here; back when I was just a user of interactive technology, I don’t think I ever criticized an interaction or an interface without saying something to the effect of “Why did they do that?” or “What were they thinking?” or “Why didn’t they do it this way?” or “I’d have done X instead of Y.”

Casual critical remarks like those make me think that I (Jordan the user, not Jordan the user-designer) took for granted an author and intentionality in the design of those interactive technologies I disliked.

—–

Another question that hit me earlier today: does thinking of Blizzard or Google as an author imply an author is dead perspective?

I always have problem on this: how can we switch among several different identities smoothly? One moment we are designers, who work for companies in reality, while the other moment we become design critics, who strive to find out things to improve or change. How can we possible do this? One day we are designers who have a belief and an intention, the other day we are design critics who insist on anti-intentionalism in every aspect of design. Isn’t this a dilemma?

I think a good designer never escapes being a designer. This is the very foundation of who we are or who we are becoming. There will always be a part of us that must try to understand the various parties involved in any given project. There will always be a part of us that wants to understand the author. That’s not a bad thing. It’s crucial to our growth and understanding as designers. I believe that of more importance however is empathy for the user/viewer/participant. And that means we must have within ourselves the ability on occasion to view a design through the anti-intentionalist lens. In my opinion, empathy is a core designer ability — probably the most difficult to develop.